FM Changes

[Fromthedeep]

I'm also incredibly curious to know if the current stability and autopilot modelling is intended. It would be greatly appreciated to have Aerges or one of the F1 SMEs chime in.

[Rhinozherous]

I hope the FM gets a hotfix, it is impossible to point the nose at a specific point in close combat with all this wobbliness. 

[Vibora]

Dear all,

There is a bug in the current OB that prevents yaw dampening to activate regardless of the yaw/anti-slip or pitch dampers switches position. We have it fixed internally and it will be corrected in the next update.

We apologise for the inconvenience.

 

[Bremspropeller]

Thanks for the heads-up, Vibora.

Is there any plan on changing the pitch-dampening behaviour? Right now, it's awfully easy to set up oscillations with very little stick-travel. It now almost flies like it did with the pitch-damper off in the patch before.

[ARM505]

44 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Thanks for the heads-up, Vibora.

Is there any plan on changing the pitch-dampening behaviour? Right now, it's awfully easy to set up oscillations with very little stick-travel. It now almost flies like it did with the pitch-damper off in the patch before.

That's literally exactly what he's saying. "....that prevents yaw dampening to activate regardless of the yaw/anti-slip or pitch dampers switches position." The systems are off regardless of switch position.

[Bremspropeller]

4 minutes ago, ARM505 said:

That's literally exactly what he's saying. "....that prevents yaw dampening to activate regardless of the yaw/anti-slip or pitch dampers switches position." The systems are off regardless of switch position.

What he's LITERALLY EXACTLY saying is that it prevents YAW dampening to activate.

[ARM505]

Well, the sentence is unclear in that case - why mention the pitch damper switch position, which would logically not do yaw damping in that case? Hence me highlighting that part of the sentence.

[reichenwald]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Vibora:

Dear all,

There is a bug in the current OB that prevents yaw dampening to activate regardless of the yaw/anti-slip or pitch dampers switches position. We have it fixed internally and it will be corrected in the next update.

We apologise for the inconvenience.

 

What about the crazy Speed the F1 can reach now?

[Vek17]

6 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

There are no moving goalposts here. People seem to have a hard time managing uncertainties. The only things we know for certain so far are:

- There still hasn't been a single trackfile pointed forward. Talk about intellectual dishonesty...

I will humor your bad faith. Multiple trackfiles from different maps just because I have them.

Marianas - 840kt Before normal acceleration stopped 847 kt top speed at 600 feet
South Atlantic - 888kt before normal acceleration stopped 893kt top speed at 200ft
Caucasus - 840kt before normal acceleration stopped 847kt top speed at 500ft

These were flown with altitude hold and in some cases the plane just didn't want to sit as low as it started gaining several hundred feet after engaging. They all include takeoffs and run until fuel depletion, but only South Atlantic was from a cold start. Not sure what hot start is doing differently to lose -51kt.

I have a Syria track too if you llike but it is 840kt before normal acceleration stopped 847kt top speed at 400ft and didn't fit in one message's size limit.

847kt-Caucasus.trk 893kt-SouthAtlantic.trk 847kt-Marianas.trk

Edited August 26, 2022 by Vek17

[Bremspropeller]

16 minutes ago, ARM505 said:

Well, the sentence is unclear in that case - why mention the pitch damper switch position, which would logically not do yaw damping in that case? Hence me highlighting that part of the sentence.

They could be mixed up, for starters. By the way he writes it, they aren't.

6 minutes ago, Vek17 said:

I will humor your bad faith.

It's a bug reporting standard, not a matter of faith. Thanks for posting them.

 

[Rhinozherous]

4 hours ago, Vibora said:

Dear all,

There is a bug in the current OB that prevents yaw dampening to activate regardless of the yaw/anti-slip or pitch dampers switches position. We have it fixed internally and it will be corrected in the next update.

We apologise for the inconvenience.

 

Thank you very much for status on this topic!

[Vek17]

38 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

They could be mixed up, for starters. By the way he writes it, they aren't.

It's a bug reporting standard, not a matter of faith. Thanks for posting them.

 

This is not in the bug reporting forum and no one was reporting it as a bug, there is a different thread talking about low altitude speed there. This was just discussion about how this seems off and people talking about the FM changes.

[Harlikwin]

17 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I don't think 870 is "too fast" - it just doesn't fit in the big picture (vs loaded). Stores drag might be off.

What I find funny is that I can get almost M1 on the deck in MIL, but I can't get supersonic in blower in high alt in the same configuration (two tips and a centerline tank).

Do you think like 1100 at sea level is too fast cuz it can be done in a dive. I've managed near m2 coming in from a dive and holding at sea level.  I've gotten to m1.4 at se level with a clean jet accelerating from subsonic which seems off as well. It does make some scary noises at m1.2 but it will push thru. 

[Harlikwin]

14 minutes ago, Vek17 said:

This is not in the bug reporting forum and no one was reporting it as a bug, there is a different thread talking about low altitude speed there. This was just discussion about how this seems off and people talking about the FM changes.

Honestly the aside from the overspeed stuff I quite like the FM, the shakes around m1.2 are interesting, the nose hunting around some near the transonic is intersting, and idk how real or not the lack of stability or "coupling" is but it certainly gives the F1 a very different "feel" vs some other modules that seem far more on rails. 

[Bremspropeller]

13 minutes ago, Vek17 said:

This is not in the bug reporting forum and no one was reporting it as a bug, there is a different thread talking about low altitude speed there. This was just discussion about how this seems off and people talking about the FM changes.

You just posted the exact same tracks in that thread a couple of minutes ago. That makes them the first tracks in that thread, too. Slowly getting there.

1 minute ago, Harlikwin said:

Do you think like 1100 at sea level is too fast cuz it can be done in a dive. I've managed near m2 coming in from a dive and holding at sea level.  I've gotten to m1.4 at se level with a clean jet accelerating from subsonic which seems off as well. It does make some scary noises at m1.2 but it will push thru. 

Did you reach 1100 from a dive in survitesse (500 rpm bump > M1.4)? Did the CIT warning/ LIM light ever come on?

Do you have a track?

 

[unlikely_spider]

Hopefully we don't have to wait another month for this little fix?

[Harlikwin]

43 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Did you reach 1100 from a dive in survitesse (500 rpm bump > M1.4)? Did the CIT warning/ LIM light ever come on?

Do you have a track?

 

Yeah 1100 was in a dive per F2  bar, I also hit M2.0 or near it per the internal speedo once, you gotta be careful cuz at some point you do blow up and the speedo doesn't go past 900 or whatever it is but the mach indicator does. I honestly can't remember if the LIM light ever came on. Its pretty easy to replicate, I was doing it on the SA map, start at 30k be supersonic at start, dive like 20/30 deg. you gotta be careful cuz at some point like over m1.4/1.6 you start loosing control authority esp in roll. But if you are careful you can pull it out near the deck if you don't dive too steep. 

Just starting at sea level subsonic (SA map default settings) (clean full fuel load) you can just put it in burner and get it to 1.4 maybe even higher (I had to back off due to an uncommanded roll to the left). Given that that speed record for sea level is like m1.3 with that race modified F104 IDK, 1.4 seems a bit optimistic (and it was still climbing slowly when I throttled back). 

No idea on your survitesse bump thing. 
 

IDK I figure either something is off with overall drag for the model at high speeds or maybe the engine. 

[ST0RM]

39 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

Hopefully we don't have to wait another month for this little fix?

Internal testing prior to releasing this to ED for inclusion into the OB push, would have found this in 5 minutes. Why can't we get these devs at least make a little effort? This should have never made it out. 

[Bremspropeller]

28 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah 1100 was in a dive per F2  bar, I also hit M2.0 or near it per the internal speedo once, you gotta be careful cuz at some point you do blow up and the speedo doesn't go past 900 or whatever it is but the mach indicator does. I honestly can't remember if the LIM light ever came on. Its pretty easy to replicate, I was doing it on the SA map, start at 30k be supersonic at start, dive like 20/30 deg. you gotta be careful cuz at some point like over m1.4/1.6 you start loosing control authority esp in roll. But if you are careful you can pull it out near the deck if you don't dive too steep. 

Just starting at sea level subsonic (SA map default settings) (clean full fuel load) you can just put it in burner and get it to 1.4 maybe even higher (I had to back off due to an uncommanded roll to the left). Given that that speed record for sea level is like m1.3 with that race modified F104 IDK, 1.4 seems a bit optimistic (and it was still climbing slowly when I throttled back). 

No idea on your survitesse bump thing. 
 

IDK I figure either something is off with overall drag for the model at high speeds or maybe the engine. 

I gave it a couple of shots - all the "high IAS" tests ended with me blowing up at 1110'ish IAS with the LIM light blaring.

 

1) Low level, I maxed out at 890IAS (briefly). The airplane struggles at around M1.2, but when the shock-cones are starting to travel, she starts accelerating at a higher rate (beyond 790-800'ish). She never quite reaches (close, though) M1.4 where the engine would go into survitesse and whjere it would add 500RPM (8900RPM) automaticly.

There's some sh1tty flying on my part. I did get hung ailerons/ spoilers in a turn at 880IAS. The ailerons/ spolers went full direction at zero effect. There certainly is something off here, but it's most likely unrelated.

test lo.trk

2) I tried the 1100IAS run pretty much the way you described, but i started subsonic, went supersonic and pitched down around M1.2'ish to get beyond the transonic drag rise. Survitesse at M 1.4. The airplane would accelerate beautifully up to the point where it blows both wings. I had that happen on all three trials I did. The LIM light at that point had been on for about 5-10s.

test hi3.trk

 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[sedenion]

15 minutes ago, ST0RM said:

Internal testing prior to releasing this to ED for inclusion into the OB push, would have found this in 5 minutes.

"Why don't I have checked that before release ?" is typically what devs think when they realise they made a release thinking all was ok and discover 5 minutes later there is a big bug... Except if you have army of beta-testers, one cannot verify each single thing and scenarios each release, one verify what we think has been modified. However modification in portion of the code may affect apparently unrelated other elements the devs may forget to check.

Edited August 26, 2022 by sedenion

[Harlikwin]

17 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

I gave it a couple of shots - all the "high IAS" tests ended with me blowing up at 1110'ish IAS with the LIM light blaring.

 

1) Low level, I maxed out at 890IAS (briefly). The airplane struggles at around M1.2, but when the shock-cones are starting to travel, she starts accelerating at a higher rate (beyond 790-800'ish). She never quite reaches (close, though) M1.4 where the engine would go into survitesse and whjere it would add 500RPM (8900RPM) automaticly.

There's some sh1tty flying on my part. I did get hung ailerons/ spoilers in a turn at 880IAS. The ailerons/ spolers went full direction at zero effect. There certainly is something off here, but it's most likely unrelated.

test lo.trk 727.16 kB · 0 downloads

2) I tried the 1100IAS run pretty much the way you described, but i started subsonic, went supersonic and pitched down around M1.2'ish to get beyond the transonic drag rise. Survitesse at M 1.4. The airplane would accelerate beautifully up to the point where it blows both wings. I had that happen on all three trials I did. The LIM light at that point had been on for about 5-10s.

test hi3.trk 298.57 kB · 0 downloads

 

 

 

Yeah, so at high alt the light comes on and the plane blows up, but something weird is happening if you get it to low alt fast enough.

Yeah IDK at what speed it actually blows up at, but its probably a bit low at sea level. 

 

[gnomechild]

1 hour ago, sedenion said:

"Why don't I have checked that before release ?" is typically what devs think when they realise they made a release thinking all was ok and discover 5 minutes later there is a big bug... Except if you have army of beta-testers, one cannot verify each single thing and scenarios each release, one verify what we think has been modified. However modification in portion of the code may affect apparently unrelated other elements the devs may forget to check.

 

This, also assuming that these changes were merged intentionally. Which we've seen several times over with how DCS releases go that sometimes the wrong branch gets merged. Just like with any software development. I know I've merged the wrong branches / tags before on a number of occasions. Always a fun day 

[Get_Lo]

I hope they meant the pitch too, feels like im hitting speed bumps when im trying to use the stick.
Also from someone who previously flew with the Yaw Damper turned OFF almost exclusively, there is more to it than the yaw dampener just "not working" the whole jet feels different. if it was just the dampener not turning on than the way I fly shouldnt have been effected too much but yet it has, massive stability problems in the Yaw axis. (still not as bad as the pitch though)

[Loukuins]

I totally agree with you Get_Lo, I hope the devs will fix this too ! Also the heavy sensibility of the stick aswell !

[ST0RM]

6 hours ago, sedenion said:

"Why don't I have checked that before release ?" is typically what devs think when they realise they made a release thinking all was ok and discover 5 minutes later there is a big bug... Except if you have army of beta-testers, one cannot verify each single thing and scenarios each release, one verify what we think has been modified. However modification in portion of the code may affect apparently unrelated other elements the devs may forget to check.

 

It's a flight model issue, not an obscure system that would require detailed setup. Its literally go up and fly. Can't get any easier.